JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for following main reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned office order No.616/U.P. San. Nid.-1 (54)/2016 dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Director, U.P. Museum Directorate (opposite party No.2) so far as it relates to regularization of petitioner's services prospectively i.e. from the date of assuming the charge on the post of Driver at International Ram Katha Sangrahalaya (opposite party No.4), as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner on the post of Driver alongwith all consequential services benefits from the date of initial date of appointment i.e. 30.07.1996 as per the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or On Work-Charge or On Contract in Government Departments on 'Group-C' and 'Group-D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 read with Government orders dated 13.08.2015 and 24.02.2016, within the time specified by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the petitioner difference of salary for the period 30.07.1996 to 15.09.2017 alongwith dearness allowance and other admissible allowances as being paid to regularly appointed Drivers of the State Government." 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver as daily wager on 30.07.1996 and continued on the said post without any obstruction till December, 2005 and thereafter, he was disengaged from the service by the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the disengagement, the petitioner approached this Court by means of the Writ Petition No. 1247 (S/S) of 2006, which was disposed of finally by means of the judgment and order dated 25.01.2017. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 reads as under:- "The trivial question now left is with regard to regularization of the petitioner on the post of Driver. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has continued on the post of Group D since his engagement in the year 1996. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 reads as under:- "The trivial question now left is with regard to regularization of the petitioner on the post of Driver. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has continued on the post of Group D since his engagement in the year 1996. The work of the post of the Driver has been taken and in view of the engagement as daily wager on Class IV post w.e.f. 15.12.1988, he is entitled for regularization on the post in question under Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group "D' Posts Rules, 2001 (in short referred to as 2001 Rules'). It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in identical situation, this Court has passed the judgment and order dated 18.9.2015 in Writ Petition No. 4052 (SS) of 2014 wherein it has been held that an employee, who had been appointed as daily wager on Group D post before 29.6.1991 and is continuing on his post on 21.12.2001, are fully eligible and entitled to be considered for regularization. Therefore, denial of regularization to the petitioner is wholly unjustified and in breach of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules. After scrutiny of records, there is no quarrel on the point that the petitioner was engaged in 1996 and today also he is working with respondents but his services have yet not been regularized. It may be clarified that the requirement under the 2001 Rules is that an incumbent was directly appointed on daily wage basis in a government service before 29.6.1991 and is/are continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the said Rules. The further requirement under the Rules is that the person must have possessed requisite qualification required for regular appointment on that post at the time of such employment on daily wage basis. It is also relevant to mention that this Court in the case of Janardan Yadav vs. State of U.P. [(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498, has held that this Court does not find any ambiguity in Rule 4(1) providing as to which kind of persons would be entitled for regularization and it nowhere requires that the incumbent must have worked throughout from the date of initial engagement till the date of commencement of the Rules. In the situation, such a stand of the State that the employee had not worked continuously or there are breaks in service, would be contrary to the Rules and would amount to adding and reading certain words in Rule 4(1) which have not been inserted by the legislature. As the rules are applicable only to daily wage employees, the Rules framing authority was well aware that such employee could not have worked continuously throughout and therefore, has clearly provided that the engagement must be before 29.6.1991 and he is continuing as such on the date of commencement of the Rule. Needless to observe here that recently the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 13.8.2015 whereby it has been provided that persons working on daily wage/work charge/contractual basis in the department of the State Government, its autonomous bodies, public undertakings/local bodies, development authorities and Zila Pancahyat, who were engaged upto 31.3.1996 shall be regularized. In these circumstances, there is no justification in not regularizing the service of the petitioner when it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager before 29.6.1991 and he was continuing on the post on 21.12.2001 and even thereafter. Now, recently the State Government vide government order dated 24th February, 2016 has changed the cut of date to 31.12.2001 and has again provided that if the post is not available then necessary steps be taken for creation of supernumerary post. Considering the facts in its entirety and the legal position, this Writ Petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the respondents to consider regularization of services of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid observation and Regularization Rules read with Government Order dated 13.08.2015 and 24.02.2016 keeping in mind that the petitioner is in service since the year 1996, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order." 4. Pursuant to the order dated 25.01.2017, passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1247 (S/S) of 2006, the case of the petitioner was considered under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (in short "Regularization Rules of 2016") and vide order dated 15.09.2017, the petitioner was regularized in the service. The order 15.09.2017 on reproduction reads as under:- ^^dk;kZy; vkns'k fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&1247¼,l@,l½@2006 Jh f'kodqekj fo'odekZ cuke m0iz0 ljdkj o vU; okn esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ csUp] y[kuÅ }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 25-01-+2017 ds leknj rFkk foRr ¼osru vk;ksx½ vuqHkkx&2 ds 'kklukns'k la[;k&44@2015@os0vk0&2&795 @nl&54¼,e½@2008 Vh0lh0 fnukad 13 vxLr] 2015 rFkk 'kklukns'k] la[;k&9@2016@os0vk0&2&201@nl&2016&8¼eq0l0l0½@2011 Vh0lh0] fnukad 24 Qjojh] 2016 ,oa dkfeZd vuqHkkx&2 dh vf/klw[;k&9@ 2016@2@197&dk&2@2016] fnukad 12-09-2016 esa fufgr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj fofu;ferdj.k gsrq xfBr lfefr dh laLrqfr ij Jh f'kodqqekj fo'odekZ] okgu pkyd ¼fu;r osru½ dks vUrjkZ"Vªh; jkedFkk lagky;] v;ks/;k] QStkckn esa osrueku :0 5200&20200 o xzsM osru :0 1900 esa fjDr okgu pkyd in ds lkis{k okgu pkyd in ij fofu;fer djrs gq, dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls rSukr fd;k tkrk gSA Jh fo'odekZ eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh] QStkckn ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj viuk LokLF; ijh{k.k djkdj LoLFkrk izek.k i= ewy:i es rFkk vU; 'kSf{kd izek.k i=ksa dh izekf.kr izfr;ksa ds lkFk mi funs'kd] vUrjkZ"Vªh; jkedFkk lagky;] v;ks/;k] QStkckn ds dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djsaxs ,oa vkns'k fuxZeu dh frfFk ls 15 fnu ds vUnj viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djuk lqfuf'pr djs vU;Fkk mDr fofu;ferhdj.k Lor% fujLr le>k tk;sxkA** 5. Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his claim, as raised in the present writ petition submitted that in fact the order dated 15.09.2017, which provides regularization to the petitioner with prospective effect, is contemptuous in nature and while issuing the said order, the opposite parties have ignored the true spirit of the judgment and order dated 25.01.2017, passed by this Court. 6. In view of the above, the prayer is to interfere in the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the opposite party No. 2, which as per the counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the spirit of the judgment and order dated 25.01.2017. 7. Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents in support of the order dated 15.09.2017 submitted that the writ petition for the main prayers sought by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the Regularization Rules of 2016. 8. It is further stated that in view of the provisions made under the Regularization Rules of 2016, the retrospective regularization i.e. the regularization from the initial date of engagement as daily wager employee cannot be granted. 9. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. 8. It is further stated that in view of the provisions made under the Regularization Rules of 2016, the retrospective regularization i.e. the regularization from the initial date of engagement as daily wager employee cannot be granted. 9. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as daily wager against the post of Driver on 30.07.1996 and he was allowed to continue on the said post till December, 2005 and subsequently, on his disengagement he approached this Court by means of the Writ Petition No. 1247 (S/S) of 2006, which was disposed of by means of the judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 with directions to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in view of the Regularization Rules as well as the Government Order applicable. In the intervening period, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the strength of the interim order dated 16.02.2006, passed by this Court. 11. For the purposes of adjudicating the issue involved in the present writ petition, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant Rules i.e. Rule(s) 7, 8 and 9 of the U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or On Work-Charge or On Contract in Government Departments on 'Group-C' and 'Group-D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, which are quoted below:- "Appointments 7. The appointing authority shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule(2) of rule 6, make appointments from the list prepared under sub-rule(6) of the said rule, in the order in which their names stand in the list. Appointments be deemed to be under the relevant service rules etc. 8. Appointments made under these rules shall be deemed to be appointments under the relevant service rules or orders, if any. Seniority 9. (1) A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection for regularisation in accordance with these rules and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules or, as the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior to the appointment of such person under these rules. (2) If two or more persons are appointed together their seniority inter se shall be determined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment." 12. (2) If two or more persons are appointed together their seniority inter se shall be determined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment." 12. It is apparent from the Rule(s) 7, 8 and 9 of the Regularization Rules of 2016 that a person can be considered in cadre only from the date of regularization and not prior to the said date. Further, the observations and directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner are also not in support of the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has also not placed any provision or rule or judgment. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Registrar General of India & another vs. V. Thippa Setty & others, (1998) 8 SCC 690 , has held that the regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective so that seniority of those, who are already in service, is not affected. This judgement has been followed in the case of Union of India and others vs. Sheela Rani (2007) 15 SCC 230 . Reference may also be made to the case of State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77 . 14. Appointment with retrospective effect is normally not permissible. One of the reasons being it will adversely affect others, who have been appointed as per Service Rules in the interregnum, in matters of seniority, promotion etc. In a case of regularization of service retrospectivity will adversely affect such rights of others who have already been regularly appointed in the regular cadre as per the Service Rules and are better placed. It is with this object that the above quoted Rules are made part of the Regularization Rules of 2016. Rule 9 of the Regularization Rules of 2016 contains a stipulation that those regularized under these Rules will be placed below those appointed in accordance with service Rules prior to them. The Rule makes a valid distinction between two different classes of employees, one which is regular and other not so. There is a rationale basis for such objective as also nexus with an object, as referred above. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.